MrSmith

And who said you can repost my images. I want it removed immediately if not sooner.

if they are links to flickr and there's no added strap line for a product to mislead you into thinking its selling something then i dont think you have any right to say don't repost. if you host images on flickr then don't be surprised if people link them.

However that was no more than a link to the image you had linked to in this thread.

Look at the HTML code.

It's called in line linking. It's not a copyright infringement. Something forum owners and moderators are aware of.

Quote

Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[5] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law:

Google does not...display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects...in which a work is fixed...and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user’s browser to a website publisher’s computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user’s computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user’s browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user’s computer screen. Google may facilitate the user’s access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner’s display rights. ...While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act...does not protect a copyright holder against [such] acts....

As a courtesy I removed the inline link and now refer to it with words. However I have saved your post making an accusation of copyright infringementon a public forum. (pdf, screenshot and HTML)

However that was no more than a link to the image you had linked to in this thread.

Look at the HTML code.

It's called in line linking. It's not a copyright infringement. Something forum owners and moderators are aware of.

As a courtesy I removed the inline link and now refer to it with words. However I have saved your post making an accusation of copyright infringementon a public forum. (pdf, screenshot and HTML)

I know the law and I own a forum and just making a point. Bottom line don't repost my images as it is wrong to do and it's disrespectful and you already know that as a Pro. Have some respect for people's work as you post links to many of others work. I'm not going to get into the technicalities of the law but my lawyer would have a field day with this regardless of how the law is written. You should already know that as a working Pro, this is not amateur hour lets get that straight. No one posts my images except me. Fred I suggested this earlier that what was the point of posting a image here as you will turn it into something else to prove your point. Which is exactly what you done and exactly why I did not want to post in the first place which I am sure why many are not as well.

Ill further further comments out as it is not very pleasant for others but you lost any respect I may have had.

I know the law and I own a forum and just making a point. Bottom line don't repost my images as it is wrong to do and it's disrespectful and you already know that as a Pro. Have some respect for people's work as you post links to many of others work. I'm not going to get into the technicalities of the law but my lawyer would have a field day with this regardless of how the law is written. You should already know that as a working Pro, this is not amateur hour lets get that straight. No one posts my images except me. Fred I suggested this earlier that what was the point of posting a image here as you will turn it into something else to prove your point. Which is exactly what you done and exactly why I did not want to post in the first place which I am sure why many are not as well.

Ill further further comments out as it is not very pleasant for others but you lost any respect I may have had.

Now your trying to turn this around. It's not re posting your image. Images are carried over into other posts all the time. Just hitting the quote button does that to.

I have shared compliments on your images many times. My images get linked here all the time. It's part of how the forums work.My images were as you would say "re posted" twice in this thread.....

The first line of my post was quite clear. "Lets go back to lens image quality." I was posting about lens quality...

I'm not going to dump on the Nikkor 15mm since I have not shot with it personally, but I would be curious to see the MTF graph for it after reading a description of it on the 16-9 website. This description is quite telling:

Talking about the 15mm Nikkor "The problem is particularly acute at smaller apertures, as was the case with the Nikon 14mm - both lenses displaying a weird rippled, toroidal plane of focus (like a slice of doughnut)...". Quite amusing...

Looking at some sample images, the corner sharpness is abysmal at any aperture:

The LS55 sample file from Doug (full frame sensor and more demanding on the lens) while minimally sharpened, appears vastly superior to the results from the Nikkor lens. I doubt either one would cause any focusing problems in a viewfinder but for 40" prints I doubt the results from the Nikkor lens would be very satisfactory.

This is obviously a pointless comparison, but then again so is this thread.

I'm not up to date on copyright information, but using Guy's long exposure image that contains motion blur from moving branches and selectively focused on the foreground with an out of focus background, and comparing it to small images that easily mask a lens' flaws is a bit of a cheap shot. But then again, so is fabricating MTF graphs and drawing red circles to make everyone believe that an 80MP razor sharp image at 40" would appear out of focus in a 12" magazine spread.

I don't question Fred's skills as a photographer, and it isn't my goal to discredit him, but some of the claims made to discredit a perfectly good product are simply outlandish (yet extremely amusing).

Steve Hendrix originally started the thread to share some useful information with everyone. Some jumped on the opportunity to blast a good product, proof was then shown that the lens was pretty damn sharp (even with any mild file sharpening applied). And once again it's all headed downhill fast; I suggest the original poster lock/close this thread before it degenerates any further.

And if anyone wants a copy for the archives, I'm sure Fred would be thrilled to send you a PDF

I know the law and I own a forum and just making a point. Bottom line don't repost my images as it is wrong to do and it's disrespectful and you already know that as a Pro. Have some respect for people's work as you post links to many of others work. I'm not going to get into the technicalities of the law but my lawyer would have a field day with this regardless of how the law is written. You should already know that as a working Pro, this is not amateur hour lets get that straight. No one posts my images except me. Fred I suggested this earlier that what was the point of posting a image here as you will turn it into something else to prove your point. Which is exactly what you done and exactly why I did not want to post in the first place which I am sure why many are not as well.

Ill further further comments out as it is not very pleasant for others but you lost any respect I may have had.

You know the law, but still chose to accuse me of copyright infringement.At least I don't make these kind of accusations.

The 28mm is a different story. Thanks for posting it. IT somewhat confirms what I have been saying.THe 55mm 2.8 LS is not up to snuff. The 28mm however is a very good lens. As is the 110mm 2.8 and the brilliant 150mm 2.8 D.

Actually if you look at the MTF curves you can see a significant difference between the 55 and the 28.

I hope the competition from Nikon and Canon will lead to significant improvements in MFDB sensor design and bring prices to more 'reasonable' levels - the gap between 35mm and MF in the film days wasn't such a tough pill to swallow.

I don't know. To me it seems that the MFD market is small and fragmented. In a sense I don't think 35mm digital is driving development APS-C and 4/3 does. Development starts in small sensors and scales up to full frame. MF sensor makers don't have the same development paths and volumes. You can build a new 0.18 micron fab to produce half a billion sensors for phone cams, and you can make full frame SLR sensors in the same fab. Unlikely that anyone would build a 0.18 micron fab for producing 7000 CCD chips a year.

On the other hand it is possible to develop your own CMOS sensor (as Leica did in cooperation with CMOSIS for the Leica M). Would MF vendors join in an effort to develop new base technology (sensors). Would they cooperate to support the leading image handling software (like Capture One and Lightroom) and fully support DNG I think they could be more competitive.

I hope the competition from Nikon and Canon will lead to significant improvements in MFDB sensor design and bring prices to more 'reasonable' levels - the gap between 35mm and MF in the film days wasn't such a tough pill to swallow.

Regarding the prices of gear I agree. But there is another side to it, having a large business like BC is different than using small scale work. An MFDB is a large investment for an amateur like me, but it can be a reasonable investment in a long run. Bcooter says he has used his Contax/Phase for a very long time with zero problems, so it worked out well for him.

Personally, I figure that trying a Nikon D800/D800E with a few good lenses would be a smart thing to do before going to invest several times that much in MF gear.

You know the law, but still chose to accuse me of copyright infringement.At least I don't make these kind of accusations.

As I suggested earlier you wouldn't have hardworking professional photographers rightly accusing you of copyright infringement if you simply, did the honorable thing and did your own independent testing.

It would definitely improve your credibility. I don't quite understand why an accomplished photographer such as yourself wouldn't so do.

Quite frankly just because someone links a photo on flickr doesn't mean you should at least drop them a short email asking permission to use their images. I notice you have your copyright symbol on your backstage photos of celebrities. Did they sign a release allowing you usage?

Of course you can ignore this post. But I look forward to the day you rent the Nikon, Canon or Phase one gear and produce some compelling images rather then spending all night on google or flickr.

It doesn't hurt to have all three. If you are an advertising, high end fashion photographer then the 1 or 2 assignments could pay for the Phase system. If you are a hobbyist who loves photography then you don't buy that red mustang when you turn fifty! Whatever gear you choose......hide the receipts from your wife or husband!!! They will have you committed.

Medium format gear has always been expensive. The Nikon gear is at a sweet spot in price. But to me it all depends upon what you trying to say in your images. It's like Gordon Parks would say, " you have a choice of weapons"